Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 16 February 18 >

February 17 edit

Template:Hera Pheri edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hera Pheri (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough links to make a useful navbox, plus each of these articles has an {{Infobox film}} template on it with "Preceded by" and "Followed by" links to the other movies in the series. --RL0919 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 23:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Iron Eagle Series edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Iron Eagle Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. (One is linked twice.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all those proposed by Koavf, they don't have enough links to keep a navigation box for them. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all the ones below along the same line. Each is a short film series with only 3-4 titles (often the last of which is not really even notable enough to have its own article). So few limited and unlikely to be expanded links does not require a template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the template is a highlighted arrangement of multiple related articles. The mentions of the other films in a particular film's article are forced, and cleaned-up versions of these articles would not have these forced passages. The template is not destructive to the encyclopedia, and four seems to be an appropriate set for navigation. (Definitely not two; still mulling about three.) Erik (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What harm do these templates have? It makes it easier to navigate through the films in a series. There are some that are pointless such as Template:Dhoom and Template:Harold & Kumar series, but most the others are helpful and should be kept.--Yankees10 16:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After thinking it over, I believe there is little need for templates with just four links, where all four are articles about movies in the same series. Each article will have an {{Infobox film}} template containing "Followed by" and/or "Preceded by" links, so it is easy to follow the sequence. Plus, if someone views the Iron Eagle IV article, surely they will realize there is an Iron Eagle and an Iron Eagle II, even if they aren't directly linked. Maybe there is some justification for series where the movies have totally different names, but not here. We should use navboxes for situations with more articles or less obvious relationships. --RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". A clear numeric progression. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL, Collectonian, Bovineboy, and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 23:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 3 of them are in {{Sidney J. Furie}} too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pokri (2006 film) edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete It's an exact copy of {{Pokiri and It`s Remades}}. Please renominate the other template if you want to. Magioladitis (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokri (2006 film) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because the template is a highlighted arrangement of the related articles. While two articles are easily connected for navigation, I think three entails a more formal setup so one does not need to go through the article body to discover these relationships. Erik (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Mexico Trilogy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mexico Trilogy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All 3 articles contain links to the other two movies. All 3 of these are also contained in the template for the works of Robert Rodriguez, which is present on all 3 articles. Essentially you have two templates in each of the 3 articles that give the same links.
  • Delete. Redundant to other templates that link the same articles. --RL0919 (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dhoom edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dhoom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because film series article should not exist with just two films. It is more useful to consolidate information about three or more films as opposed to just two. I suggest merging anything useful from the film series article to either individual film's article. Erik (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Wishmaster Series edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Wishmaster Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of four related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Not sure how else four articles can be "easily navigable from one another" without sounding so forced in the prose. Erik (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After thinking it over, I believe there is little need for templates with just four links, where all four are articles about movies in the same series. Each article will have an {{Infobox film}} template containing "Followed by" and/or "Preceded by" links, so it is easy to follow the sequence. Plus, if someone views the Wishmaster 4 article, surely they will realize there is a Wishmaster and an Wishmaster 2, even if they aren't directly linked. Maybe there is some justification for series where the movies have totally different names, but not here. We should use navboxes for situations with more articles or less obvious relationships. --RL0919 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". The sequence is clear as it is numbered. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 23:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Waxwork Duology edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Waxwork Duology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete since both articles can mention each other without need of the formal arrangement of the navigation template. Erik (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough links for a useful navbox, and the articles are already well-linked through in-body links and other templates. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Terror Toons Duology edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Terror Toons Duology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two articles, with a redlink. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because both articles can mention each other without need of the formal arrangement of the navigation template. Erik (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough articles to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Stepfather edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stepfather (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another; one is linked twice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. I disagree that the articles are "easily navigable"; for example, I don't see how one would get from the remake article to the original film's two sequels. The formal arrangement shows these relationships. Erik (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Four articles in a series that is clearly linked using the "Followed by" and "Preceded by" links in {{Infobox film}}. Slight variation from the norm in the fourth film being done as a remake, but still well linked without adding a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sadian trilogy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Critic's opinion can be added in the articles' body Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sadian trilogy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because the grouping seems historically significant enough for a formal arrangement; relationships between the films are not very discoverable in the prose itself. Erik (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One critic called these three barely related films (same production company, but different subjects, directors, etc.) a "trilogy", and that becomes the basis of a navbox? Hardly seems a significant enough connection. --RL0919 (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Maniac Cop Trilogy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Maniac Cop Trilogy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. (One is linked twice.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. I also de-linked the redundant link in the template header since it was misapplied. Erik (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All 3 movies are already linked in each others articles. No need for a second set of links at the bottom. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough links to make a useful navbox, plus each of these articles has an {{Infobox film}} template on it with "Preceded by" and "Followed by" links to the other movies in the series. --RL0919 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL, Niteshift, and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 23:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The House Tetralogy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The House Tetralogy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. (One is linked twice.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of four related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After thinking it over, I believe there is little need for templates with just four links, where all four are articles about movies in the same series. Each article will have an {{Infobox film}} template containing "Followed by" and/or "Preceded by" links, so it is easy to follow the sequence. Plus, if someone views the House IV article, surely they will realize there is a House II, even if they aren't directly linked. Maybe there is some justification for series where the movies have totally different names, but not here. We should use navboxes for situations with more articles or less obvious relationships. --RL0919 (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ginger Snaps edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ginger Snaps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. (One is linked twice and there is a redlink.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough links to make a useful navbox, plus each of these articles has an {{Infobox film}} template on it with "Preceded by" and "Followed by" links to the other movies in the series. --RL0919 (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 23:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Blob edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Blob (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by", and links in main text. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 22:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Thing edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Thing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Fewer links than I normally want from a navbox, but this is a franchise in multiple media, not just a film series, so the relationship among the articles is not as obvious as many of the other nominations on this discussion page. --RL0919 (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Xtro Trilogy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Xtro Trilogy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles (one blue link was redundant) is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough links to make a useful navbox, plus each of these articles has an {{Infobox film}} template on it with "Preceded by" and "Followed by" links to the other movies in the series. --RL0919 (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 22:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Species Films edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Species Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of four related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Erik. Airplaneman talk 22:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cube film series edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cube film series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of four related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Erik. Airplaneman talk 22:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Virgil Tibbs trilogy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Virgil Tibbs trilogy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough links to make a useful navbox, plus each of these articles has an {{Infobox film}} template on it with "Preceded by" and "Followed by" links to the other movies in the series. --RL0919 (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 22:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Three Colours edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Three Colours (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. I advise simplifying the template, though, and writing out the full film titles per the WP:EGG principle. Erik (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused and redundant both to the links in {{Infobox film}} on each article and to the director template, {{Kieslowski}}, which appears on all the articles. --RL0919 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as redundant. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 22:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Poison Ivy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Jafeluv (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poison Ivy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of four related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Erik. Airplaneman talk 22:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1 is connected to all with a section, 3 and 4 are connected to all in the leading section, 2 is connected to 1 and 3. Connections though special sections and leading paragraphs are better than the navbox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Inspector Hornleigh trilogy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inspector Hornleigh trilogy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough links to make a useful navbox, plus each of these articles has an {{Infobox film}} template on it with "Preceded by" and "Followed by" links to the other movies in the series. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 22:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone notice that the related articles don't have {{Infobox film}} yet? I think it has to deleted but I ll first create the infoboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. There were so many similar nominations in a short amount of time that I must have missed checking this one before I commented. --RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added infoboxes everywhere and some links. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Popeye Color Specials edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete aftr I added 3 items in {{Popeye}} Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Popeye Color Specials (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{Popeye}} it is counterproductive to have these three films isolated with their own tiny navigation template, when there is a much more robust navigation template for the franchise that could easily contain the links instead. --RL0919 (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per RL0919. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per RL0919. Airplaneman talk 22:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Look Who's Talking Trilogy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep, although if there are four, it should renamed to something other than trilogy. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Look Who's Talking Trilogy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of four related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Fewer links than I normally want from a navbox, but this is a franchise in multiple media, not just a film series, so the relationship among the articles is not as obvious as many of the other nominations on this discussion page. --RL0919 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Crocodile Dundee Trilogy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Crocodile Dundee Trilogy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of four related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Plastikspork; template not necessary as there are only three to deal with using "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Airplaneman talk 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All articles already have links to each other in the leading paragraph and all films havs Infoboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Revenge of the Nerds edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Revenge of the Nerds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like several other nominations on this discussion page, this navbox has a marginal number of links, and the articles are all films in a series that is named very obviously: Revenge of the Nerds, Revenge of the Nerds II, etc. Each article has an {{Infobox film}} template linking it to the ones before and after in the series, if readers can't work out on their own that II comes before III. --RL0919 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Meet the Parents edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Meet the Parents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough links to make a useful navbox, plus each of these articles has an {{Infobox film}} template on it with "Preceded by" and "Followed by" links to the other movies in the series. --RL0919 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:K-9 series edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:K-9 series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough links to make a useful navbox, plus each of these articles has an {{Infobox film}} template on it with "Preceded by" and "Followed by" links to the other movies in the series. --RL0919 (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 22:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The House Party Series edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The House Party Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of four related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another four-link navbox where the relationship among the articles is so obvious that a child could navigate them even without the help of the links that already appear in the {{Infobox film}} templates on each page. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 22:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1 and 3 are directly connected with all, 2 and 4 with 1 and 3. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Harold & Kumar series edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harold & Kumar series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because only two articles actually exist, and they are the ones for the two films. There is not a film series article nor a character(s) article. The two film articles can be interlinked without needing the formal arrangement of the navigation template. Erik (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough links to make a useful navbox, plus each of these articles has an {{Infobox film}} template on it with "Preceded by" and "Followed by" links to the other movie. --RL0919 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Big Momma's House edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Momma's House (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually only links two articles, not three (one link is a redirect), which is not enough links to make a useful navbox. Plus each of these articles has an {{Infobox film}} template on it with "Preceded by" and "Followed by" links to the other movies in the series. --RL0919 (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 22:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Transporter series edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transporter series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of four related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Porkys edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Porkys (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, all of which are easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to navigate series.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough links to make a useful navbox, plus each of these articles has an {{Infobox film}} template on it with "Preceded by" and "Followed by" links to the other movies in the series. --RL0919 (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919 as replaceable by "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL and Plastikspork; template not necessary. Airplaneman talk 22:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough articles to justify a navigational template. Robofish (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Theotokos of St. Theodore edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Userfy per request Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Theotokos of St. Theodore (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, doesn't seem to be much useful in its current state. Svick (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Practically empty. Pcap ping 03:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, keep a template code--Andrey! 09:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only links two articles that are closely related; we know a template like this isn't going to actually be used on a broad-scope article like Russia. --RL0919 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Prostitution in Europe edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prostitution in Europe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not sure why this template was created in the first place, but has been superseded by use of "Europe topic" template. EeepEeep (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WP AE goals edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP AE goals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used or useful. Pcap ping 00:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tagged for CSD as dependent on the WikiProject (Artix Entertainment), which was deleted today at MfD. --Izno (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Vladimir Horowitz Barnstar edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Userfy. Since Etincelles has already made a user-space copy, the template-space version will simply be deleted. RL0919 (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Vladimir Horowitz Barnstar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards#Unecessary barnstar. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy - Not enough notability or scope to warrent appearance at WP:*. But there's no rule against people having things like this in their userpage, as far as I know correct me if I'm wrong. Add to a subpage so it's transclude-able, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved the barnstar to User:Etincelles/The Vladimir Horowitz Barnstar. Etincelles (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_17&oldid=1141876566"